research, education and other action to improve rural living condi-
tions. In the 1930s, the Rural Electrification Administration was or-
ganized to bring power and light to the dark countryside and the
Resettlement Administration was established to assist disadvan-
taged workers in rural areas. Rural Development Committees as-
sisted community education and leadership development in the
1950s. Interest in a formal rural development policy grew in the
1960s, stimulated by the report of the National Advisory Committee
on Rural Poverty; and in 1972 the Rural Development Act gave broad
authorization for programs to assist and stimulate rural development
efforts.
The history of formal rural development policy statements dates
more recently to documents issued by federal administrations in
1979 and 1983 (Long, et al., pp. 22-23). The 1979 statement by the
Carter administration was the first formal attempt to clarify the fed-
eral rural development goals. It committed the government to aiding
the rural disadvantaged and to assisting local jurisdictions in carry-
ing out their own rural development initiatives. As we all know, very
little implementation of these goals actually followed. In 1980, the
Rural Development Policy Act established a requirement that each
federal administration produce a policy statement. The act also re-
quires an annual report to Congress on programs and accomplish-
ments under the strategy. Accordingly, in 1983 the Reagan
administration produced Better Country: A Rural Development Strat-
egy for the 1980s. This document calls for a reduced federal role in
rural development and the policy—a policy of retrenchment, not
development—has been followed more or less consistently with some
remarkable exceptions in particular programs such as the Extension
Service’s new Rural Revitalization program.
Reflecting on these initiatives and the programs they have gener-
ated over the years, one can gain an appreciation of some central
questions about rural policy if not a clear insight into what our pol-
icy is or should be. The recurring questions are in two groupings, one
raising issues about the national commitment or will to address ru-
ral problems and conditions and the other raising issues about our
capability to accomplish whatever goals we might resolve to pursue.
As to will and commitment, we ask what and why; and as to capabil-
ity, we ask how. The answers are confusing.
Consider commitment. Much discussion about rural policy centers
on the issue of whether we want a transition policy to relieve present
suffering in the transformation of rural economic and social struc-
tures or whether we want a long-term policy to stimulate and facili-
tate rural economic growth and community development. Obviously
the two could go together, but they express quite different perspec-
tives on the role of government in community development.
Transition policy expresses a “minimalist” perspective similar to
that expressed in social welfare policy before the 1960s. The mini-
11